Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also holds. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, I does not hold strong.
The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact, these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.
The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant. Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus, none of the arguments holds strong.
Clearly, illiterate people lack will power and maturity in thoughts. They may easily be misled into false convictions or lured into temptations to vote for a particular group. So, argument II holds. However, a person is literate does not mean that he is conscious of all political movements, which requires practical awareness of everyday events. Thus, I also holds strong. Besides, Constitution has extended the right to vote equally to all its citizens. Hence, III also holds.
Clearly, in the blind race for attaining nuclear powers, acquiring nuclear weapons is an inevitability to protect the country from the threat of nuclear powers. So, argument I holds strong. Also, defence of the country is as important as internal development. So, II does not hold. Argument III seems to be vague. Also, India intends to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence and not aggression. So, argument IV also does not hold.
Courts are meant to judge impartially. So, argument III is vague. The system of local courts shall speed up justice by providing easy approach and simplified procedures, and thus ease the burden of the higher courts. So, I as well as II holds strong.
Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide any convincing reason. Also, it is not obligatory that government control over the institutes would ensure better education than that at present. So, both III and IV also do not hold.
Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
Clearly, capability is an essential criteria for a profession and reservation cannot ensure capable workers. So, neither I nor III holds strong. However, making one caste more privileged than the other through reservations would hinder the objectives of a classless society. So, argument II holds strong.